Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-31
I do not know that

his character was known to the person
that employed hin. | do not Eoow Dat
long he hsi been IA tne Emp ioy Of de-
fendant." TIt objection was uyerIulnd.
The accident &C ;urred February G. 1886
We are some what at loss TO know how
| deposition in one case came to be read
in another suit. 1t appears thnt said
deposition in the Quinn case was resd
without plaintiffs objection. Considering
the answer objected to by defendant in the
light Of this testimony, we are Of the
opinion the court erred Ia permitting the
answer to the question Of competency tn
be read, il being clearly shown by MS
own admissions that he Wss not qualified
to know the engineers competency. We
hold this reversible error. Reversed and
remsnded. Games, j.
L. D. Wilkes vs.. Adler, G 9idman & Co.;
appeal from Camp. Appellees had g
Judgment against one Dawson, a tenant
Of appellant. Appellees caused an execu-
tiOn 10 issue on said Judgment aud levied
a9on two bales Of cotton on the premises
Of appellant belonging to Dawson, and
caused the same to be sold, and became
purchasers at the sale. When appellant
heard CT the said levy, ne brought suit for
the indebtedness Of his tenant, Dawson,
to himself and to foreclose his landlords
lien. He obtained Judgment aad fore
closure, and the cotton was seized under
order of the court when sppellaes re-
| pleVled the e.me, and flied 8
claimants bond to try the right
OF property. Appellant claimed uncer
his landlords lien and appeuees by rea-
son of their purchase at execution sale,
and alleged they were not bound by ap-
pellsnt's Judgment because they had no
notice of their foreclosure. Appellant OBJ
tanned Judgment in the Justice court. Il
WAS appealed TO District court where ap
pellees recovered judgment. Held: APP
pellant had preference lien upon this
property. The tenant could not remove
any part OF this property from the premi-
ses without suhiecting it to the most
stringent process of the lay; much less
had anyone else right to carry it off and
defeat the lien of the landlord, for his
own benefit. Appellees claim that they
left enough property to pay the landlord,
and therefore had coed title 20 the cot
ton. The statute holds the contrary.
The judgment IS reversed and here rem
dered for appellant for full amount Of his
CT .tm, SIS, damage and all costs Of suit.
| reversed and redered. Willie, G. J.
East Line and Red River Railway Com
pany vs.. Mary L. Culberson; appeal from
| N Jrris. When the statement IF facts is
made up wholly OF ques ions aud an
swer5 as taken down by the ssenogra-
pner. Held: This is not in conformity
with the rules OF this court, and We find
no excuse Tor the departure. We shall
content ourselves, however, with ad-
Judging the costs of the motion to dis
miss and of the statement against appel
lsnt, TO be paid by him, Notwithstanding
8 reversal of the case. This suit was
brought by appellee on behslf of her two
minor children, to recover OF appellant
damages from appellant for the death OF
her husband, alleged to have been caused
by neg igence of appellant. On the trial
it appeared that the deceased, appellee IS
husband, had a mother living. Verdict
|, and Judgment for appellee. Appellant
moved in arrest of Judgment, and also
for new trial, on the ground that the
mother of deceased WAS necessary party
10 the suit. Both motions were over
ruled, appellant excerpts and assigns
the ruling as error. Held: TIE Statute
requires that such suits must be brought
!, by sll the benz fciaries, or for the beuefi-
Of them ell. By the statute the surviving
, husband or wife, children and pareuts Of
deceased are benz fciaries. the mother
should have undoubtedly been made 6
party to the suit. Reversed AID re
msnded. Gsines, J.
Wolf and Sons vs.. Ward Taylor ct al;
appeal from Marion. Appellants sueC
out writ of attachmentagalnst the prop
| erty Of one Gill, and had same levied COY
) appellee who was Sheriff of Marion
, county. The levy was made upon tht
stock of goods, counters and shelving in
the storehouse, and upon the storehouse
. aud lot upon which it stood. Previous
| to this Taylor had levied similar attach
, ments On goods, st0rehouse, etc, fol
other parties. Appellants were the only
party who specially directed that the
counter and sh living be levied upon
Taylor sold the goods aud the
, purchase money did not psy Of attach
, ments in full that were ahead of appel
J lants. Taylor then went out Of office and
his success sors sold the house and lot,
! aud the priority liens ahead CT appellant
still remained unpaid: balance remsin
ing due. Subsequently an order to sell
!, the Counters and shelving were delivered
70 Taylor's successor. Inc latter testi-
fed that the former hsd not turned over
TO him any property seized under attach
menft ana L1at ne n2d not opened the
doors of the storehouse o sell the prop
erty, because same were locked and he
|, did not have authority to break them
down. At the time of trial this property
WAS still in the storehouse in as good
condition as when levied upon. THIS suit
was brought to recover the value of these
articles because it is alleged the sppellee
, negligently permitted them to pass from
his possession, appellants losing their
security thereby, Gill being insol-
vent, etc. Judgment fors defendants
Held: 1t does not appear from the evil
, dence that defendants, or any one else,
was claiming the property. The only
thing preventing the foreclosure Of ap-
: pellants lien was the fact that the doors
/ Of the storehouse were locked. In this
case the defendant have not lost the
: goods, or allowed them to pass into the
hands of adverse claimants. Had he done
his, he would have been responsible
We cannot see that appellants have been
damaged by the failure Of Ward Taylor
! to make formal transfer OF the property
to hie successor. The judgment below
was in accordance with the law and evil
dence. Affirmed, Willie, GU.